Point of Law : While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where settlement is arrived at immediately after alleged commission of offence and matter is still under investigation, High Court may be liberal in accepting settlement to quash criminal proceedings/investigation.

JUDGMENT :

1. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioners-seeking quashment for FIR No.68/2017 for offences under Section 452, 323, 506/34 RPC registered with Police Station, Pir Mitha Jammu.

2. Briefly put, the case set up by the petitioners is that on 18.02.2017 petitioner No.1 was married to respondent No.2 as per Hindu customs and rites. It is contended that the relations between the petitioner No.1 and 2 remained cordial for some time but within three months of the marriage, matrimonial disputes arose between the parties. It is also contended that the respondent No.2 started treating the petitioner No.1 with cruelty for bringing less dowry and demanding more dowry. It is further contended that the relatives of petitioner No.1 tried to settle the matrimonial dispute between the parties but of no avail. The petitioner No.1filed a petition under Section 488 Cr. P. C before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, R. S. Pura seeking maintenance from respondent No.2. The petitioner No.1 also approached the Women’s Cell of, Jammu Police, for settlement of the matrimonial dispute but despite efforts of the Women’s Cell, the relations between the petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.1 continued to remain strained.

3. It is further averred that as a counterblast, respondent No.1filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C for registration of FIR against the petitioners and pursuant to the directions dt.16.10.2017 of the learned Magistrate, the impugned FIR No.68/2017 for offences under Section 452, 323, 506/34 RPC has been registered against the petitioners.

4. It seems that during the pendency of all these proceedings, a compromise was arrived at between the parties and, accordingly, a petition for grant of divorce by mutual consent came to be filed by petitioner No.1 and respondent No. 2 before the Court of Additional District Judge, Matrimonial Cases, Jammu. As per the contents of this petition, the parties have settled their disputes amicably. It is further stated in the divorce petition that the parties thereto shall not pursue the cases filed by them against each other the impugned FIR. Based on the statements of the parties, the marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No.2 stands dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent in terms of the judgment and decree dt.29.09.2018 passed by the Matrimonial Court. The petitioners, have placed on record copies of the petition for divorce, statements of the parties recorded before the Matrimonial Court and judgment and decree dt.29.09.2018.

5. The petitioners have contended that so far as the case arising out of FIR No.68/2017, is concerned, the same could not be compounded because some of the offences are non-compoundable in nature. It is in these circumstances that the petitioners have approached this Court for seeking quashment of the aforesaid FIR and the criminal proceedings arising there from.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

7. So far as the facts alleged in the petition, particularly those pertaining to the compromise arrived at between the parties, which has led to dissolution of marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No. 2 by mutual consent are concerned, the same are not in dispute.

8. In the backdrop of aforesaid facts, the question arises as to whether this Court has power to quash the proceedings, particularly when some of the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner are non-compoundable in nature. The Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh. v. State of Punjab & another, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, while considering this aspect, has observed as under:

“57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inhe